Damage Control

Playing games with the Arrow of Causality is a very bad Idea.

TRUE STORY:

I was born with a six-pack of rock solid abs!

Nah, only kidding.

I was just another slimy, screaming glob of proteins. My abdomen, like the rest of my body, was soft and buttery smooth.

I was, however, verifiably born with a full head of hair, which I’ve managed to keep to this day. “Must be genetics,” some would say. Or most would, in the current intellectual arrangement. Once upon a time they would have said my “lineage” or “ancestry.” But “genetics” sound way more high-fallutin’ and sciencey. So genes it is.

DNA likely plays some role in what we observe and measure, out here on the cosmic spitball we call Earth. But how big a role? And during which stage in the great chain of causality does this role play out?

That’s where we start getting into trouble, pretending we know more than we actually do. We use statistical data and radiological imaging techniques to get a closer look at structures. But unfortunately, we’ll also use them to cobble together the pictures we want to see. We apply our biases and ex post facto rationales to fill the gaps, produce precious theories that only look scientific on the surface, but are rooted in absurd and fallacious assumptions about how things work.

Most of all, we play games with the arrow of causality.

Back to that screaming meat blob for a moment:

I mentioned that my newborn body was smooth, and that smoothness includes my brain. That a brain is just another body part is one of those facts that’s both totally obvious yet conveniently obscured or ignored by postmodern scientists and their parent species. But like my musculature, or like any other part of my material, my brain is mostly a smooth lump of raw clay in the beginning, which will be shaped by later events in spacetime.

The forces which will shape my material body are various. Some, such as gravity or magnetism, seem to be indifferent to this shaping process. Others are the ultimate product of intentions. Rock hard abs, for example. Or all the fissures, cracks, canals and wrinkles that formed in my brain when I was reading Moby Dick, for another. Perhaps not all transformation of physical reality is downstream of mind, but most of it appears to be.

Intent alone is not enough to transform, of course. Effort must also be applied to transform from smooth and soft to ripped and rigid. But conscious effort is always subject to intent. Doing one more rep in the gym or reading one more page of the book are intentional choices we make, both of which lead to physical transformation.

Our bodies can also be transformed by accidents. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, for instance, my body will likely be transformed in dramatic ways. What was strong will suddenly become weak. If my injuries include head trauma, that may translate into all kinds of weaknesses in communication and transaction, and perhaps even in recognition and/or memory (which, as Jon from

Notebooks of an Inflamed Cynic

recently pointed out, aren’t at all the same thing).

Finally, our bodies can be transformed by the intentions of others. Instead of getting hit by a bus, I could be stabbed by a man. Whether or not I “had it coming” is a separate question. The wound itself marks a transformation of the body.

In all cases, the damage may be “temporary” from a certain perspective, in that it will physically heal over time. But even in healing, the body is still in a way permanently transformed. What we call the “healing process” is in a sense the force of life producing more material and driving it into the imperfectly shaped gaps of damage. Transformation therefore occurs at least on the micro level when healing, with subtle new pathways forming in the wake of the trauma. Sometimes these changes remain visible at the macro level, which we refer to as “scars.”

Oddly enough, they are also called “muscles.” For instance, my gigantic pecs and six-pack abs — which, sorry ladies, I don’t yet have — are the products of microscopic, self-inflicted wounds. The visible sinews and grooves are the fingerprints of harm. But it’s the kind of harm which, if carefully and intelligently managed, leads to greater strength over time.

That we are beings who are not only molded primarily by damage, but who can actually summon strength from it should be a deeply instructive hint about the nature of reality. But this fact can also mislead us, and send us down dangerous rabbit holes. That’s because all these ways in which our bodies are transformed through damage can intersect and overlap, often complicating our interpretation of causality as a consequence.

An example:

Say I’m the villain in an action movie, at the end of which the hero pushes my evil ass out of an airplane. What was the ultimate cause of my demise? Was it gravity? The ground? Bruce Willis?

And if the cause is Willis¹, which part of the Willis System sealed my doom? Was it the brain that organized the plan? The nerve routes that transmitted it? The sweaty muscles that executed it? Or was it ultimately Willis’s will to kill me that did me in?

If we’re feeling churlish, we could keep going. For instance, maybe the root cause of my (literal) downfall was my own wicked intentions and actions, without which Bruce wouldn’t have shoved me. Or maybe it was the fault of the hero’s parents, for raising such a brave, strong and moral dude. Or maybe it was just my choice to climb aboard that particular plane, on that particular day? Or even the invention of flight itself. It was those goshdarn Wright brothers who screwed me!

“Come out to the coast, we’ll get together, have a debate about linear causality.”

Hopefully you get the gist. Causes-and-effects aren’t so easy to untangle and properly order. The same goes for the root cause of any bodily transformation — which, if you’ll recall, includes the brain. But, like I said, we often pretend they are. Personally, I blame the poorly-named “Enlightenment” for that, but feel free to pin the tail on any cause-donkey you wish. There are so many to choose from.

For example, a more recent cause could be the field of neurology, or even brain research in general. That includes psychological research, which is perhaps the clearest example of the belief that we can know and prove more than we actually can. Psychologists attempt to cram the infinite into the cramped little boxes of their theories, which they adorn with increasingly fancy jargon to disguise fatal errors in causality.

That isn’t to say these areas of study are totally devoid of value. Making measurements and gathering data can lead to good applications as well as bad ones. even if the theory itself is off by a country mile.

But what if the theory isn’t merely shunted off course or incomplete? What if the pictures we form from it are entirely upside down and backwards?

---

Ponerologist and fellow Deimos Station founder

Harrison Koehli

recently wrote a piece that you might call a clinical taxonomy of psychobiological evil. It’s well-written, well-reasoned, insightful and informative, as per usual.

Psychopaths, Sociopaths and Antisocials

Harrison is a brilliant man. He is also a very knowledgeable one (which, though they may intersect, isn’t at all the same thing. But he is both). He has read more than me, studied more than me and, in a very real sense, simply knows more than I do when it comes to the subjects of ponerology, psychology, parapsychology and more.

For example, at the end of the article, he summarizes several technical terms that are often conflated or otherwise misused:

• psychopathy : essential psychopathy (Lob.) : trait dissociality (ICD) : primary psychopathy — highly heritable, characteristic interpersonal/affective traits, antisocial behaviors

• sociopathy : sociopathy/functional characteropathy (Lob.) : secondary psychopathy — lower heritability than psychopathy, social risk factors (e.g. childhood abuse, poor parenting, low SES), antisocial behaviors

• [no commonly used North American term] : frontal characteropathy (Lob.) : organic pseudopsychopathy or secondary personality change (ICD) : secondary psychopathy — primarily the result of traumatic brain injury; dysfunction in cognition, affect, and behavior sharing features with the above

• antisocial personality disorder overlaps with all of the above (most strongly with sociopathy)

As an investigator of evil, Harrison is essentially Sherlock Holmes, applying both his powerful tools of reason and his vast warehouse of knowledge to seek out our Enemy’s secret dens and hidey-holes. In order to pursue evil from his high angle of perception, he requires both precision of language and a deep understanding of the history that formed its major terms and concepts.

By comparison, I’m just a bloodhound. I sniff. I growl. I charge at the scent. I can’t approach the subject of evil in the precise and technical way that Harrison can.

That’s not to say that he looks at the problem as purely reductive and mechanical. He doesn’t, as you can clearly see from his masterpiece below:

Supernatural Evil and Ponerology

I haven’t recommended this piece nearly enough, and I suggest you read it before you go on listening to me bark and howl. Here’s a taste:

Human evil is an individual phenomenon with aspects of group dynamics. It manifests first at the level of an individual person, who may operate like a lone wolf—take your typical serial killer. But group dynamics also enter the picture. Some individuals are more susceptible to the “spellbinding” effect of pathological/evil factors than others. This effect is magnified in a group setting, which we see in ponerogenic groups like organized crime networks, revolutionary fanatics, (semi-)clandestine organizations and pressure groups, or examples of mass formation. Psychobiology is the proximate source of evil in our world.

The ultimate source of evil individual and group dynamics is metaphysical in nature. In this case it isn’t “God’s will” at work, but its opposite, which exists by virtue of the necessity of negation as a logical complement to affirmation, without which true freedom would not obtain within reality. (The “freedom” only to do good is not freedom. Evil must exist as a counterbalance, contrast, and live option. Similarly, beauty would be indistinguishable and unrecognizable in the absence of ugliness.)

While both articles are valuable, my nose senses this one hits closer to the mark in terms of the causation dilemma. Or, at the very least, it doesn’t propose a framework by which others (meaning not Harrison or myself) could potentially trick themselves into inverting the arrow, and claiming the effect is the cause. The reasons they’ll do this vary, but I suspect at the core is a desire to avoid assigning blame, serviced by invoking the blind circuitry of determinism. Trying to do an end-run around sin, essentially.

Mind you, this can also be described as a desire to proclaim innocence, whether of Self, Other, both, some or all. In fact, it’s usually depicted this way, if they even bother to address it. And they often don’t. Even the most hardheaded promoters of material-reductionism sense they can’t quite get away with that particular trick.

And yet, many will try. For instance, consider the case of Damar Hamlin.

In the immediate wake of his on-field collapse an army of paid propagandists and hypnotized thralls charged into action, becoming overnight experts on cordis commotio. Never mind that this rare diagnosis flies in the face of all research and evidence, or that it was wildly speculative and irresponsible to provide it from afar. The goal wasn’t to soundly diagnose Hamlin. The goal was to to point the arrow of cause somewhere — anywhere — other than the most logical and obvious one. This strategy would be comical, if it wasn’t so dark.

But the core desire and the strategies employed to achieve it get even darker, when it comes to the subject of brains.

---

We already know that our shape is largely determined by damage, whether caused intentionally or by accidents. When we investigate the cause of the transformative damage, we typically start with the nearest/most direct evidence node and work outwards. We also compare such evidence to similar cases, hunting for patterns and signals as usual. But if we’re not careful, this can produce some really weird ideas about reality.

Here’s a thought experiment:

Suppose I’m a deaf, blind, mute and illiterate stranger, who suddenly comes staggering up to you in the street. Not knowing anything else about me, you notice my limp first. And since I can’t tell you anything else about my situation, it’s entirely up to you to investigate the cause.

As I come closer, you notice a bloody opening on my leg. That’s the nearest cause, since you basically know that such wounds can lead to decreased function. There could also be additional wounds you can’t readily see, such as torn ligaments or broken bones. Or — for all you really know — I could have been born with that limp, and the wound is unrelated to it (and given how the gods have apparently cursed me in so many other ways, that theory might not even be far-fetched).

And yet, damage = deficiency is an observable pattern, and is accepted as a general principle. So you apply that template, and begin to inspect the opening in my leg. You can gauge its approximate size and shape with the naked eye: long, deep and narrow. What caused this transformation of my flesh, which in turn could be the proximate cause of my limp-effect?

At this point, you have two (main) options on the table:

1. Incidental: The opening was caused by some kind of pointed surface, blade or other sharp edged object, combined with an application of force via my own movement, an external force, or some combination of the two.

2. Inherent: My genetic blueprint contained all the programmatic instructions for this wound-like structure to eventually manifest on my leg, and at this particular time, size, shape and depth.

In the second theory, the opening’s similarity to a knife wound is coincidental. It’s purely an accident of birth, and perhaps one that runs in my genetic line. It appeared like the opening of a flower's petals, and your observation of it in the snapshot of time described above is taken as evidence that it was preexisting and not the product of any intention or accident in the collisions of spacetime.

The fact I wasn’t on hand for you to measure its incremental growth and changes over the years, perhaps by comparing it to other snapshots of my leg, doesn’t damage your core assumption about how it formed. You presume I’ve been limping for a long time, with the limp getting progressively worse as this erroneous, pre-programmed transformation neared its conclusion. Perhaps other factors played a role as well, such as activities I participated in that served to aggravate or intensify its effects. Unfortunately, you can’t ask me.

Now: why would you ever assume #2 was the answer?

What if the ultimate reason was that you’d never seen a knife before, let alone a knife-wound? The whole area of study is just too new to you, so you really have very little idea of what it is you’re looking at.

Or what if the reason was that the thought of violence — and especially intentional violence — was just too alien and disturbing for you to contemplate?

My nose tells me the answer is a bit of both.

Now let’s apply the same thought experiment to “damaged” brains.

In Harrison’s Psychopaths, Sociopaths and Antisocials he cites several diagnostic tools and tests which purportedly show brain damage to be the proximate cause of most (and in the strange opinion of some, all) psychopathy. But apart from a few cases that attach recorded evidence of violent physical trauma, the theory expands to include all “abnormality” in the brain structures. The apparance of these atypical structures are therefore presumed to be genetic in nature — e.g. pre-programmed, mechanical, automatic. They are thus declared to be rock solid evidence of evil’s cause, rather than evil’s effect.

With a certain application of this model, even a person who commits the most horrifying crimes can be declared innocent of the charges. In fact, such declarations of “nature” — based on momentary snapshots like CT scans and such — are typically buttressed by others of the “nurture” flavor. If the evil deed wasn’t caused by brain damage or genetic predisposition, then it was caused by “psychological damage” rooted in some kind of tragic event or horrible crime.

While I’m no fan of psychology, I think this latter theory actually hits closer to the default version of the cause. But like cordis commotio, the target never lands on the much more obvious cause, which is a much better fit for a general principle. And by that I mean not only the cause of the criminal behavior, but of those Abby Normal structures that often look like damage at multiple scales of observation. One might even say they absolutely are the result of damage, as is almost everything that molds and shapes the matter of our bodies.

But damage from what, exactly?

Allow me to present a bloodhound’s alternate theory of the case.

---

In an old episode of the Simpsons, back when it was still watchable, Bart becomes the “I Didn’t Do It Kid” — essentially a living, breathing catchphrase about absurd causality games.

Absurd, because he clearly did do it. Everyone saw him do it. The cause and its destructive effects couldn’t be plainer, or his denial more ludicrous. Comedy ensues.

It does not ensue in the story of Cain, however, of which Bart’s version is but a distant echo. Cain’s crime is witnessed by the ultimate Observer, who then tests him to see if he will compound one crime with another. Cain does, and as a consequence he and all his future descendants —- his genetic line, essentially — are cursed. As usual, it ain't the crime, but the coverup.

Many people who study the bible take this story for more than an instructive fable. In their opinion, some form of curse indeed haunts our blood, trickling down from the root cause of Cain’s fratricide (or perhaps from murder in general). Oddly enough, this sounds similar to the way epigenetics and sometimes plain old genetics are thought to work, if the systems are assumed to be bidirectional.

In other words, if we think of genes as recording devices as well as blueprints, then it’s not a huge leap to believe that an evil act could echo down through generations. In fact, perhaps that’s what’s meant by the Mark of Cain: fingerprints of a bloody crime scene, echoed in various DNA patterns and other signals that are difficult to observe and untangle. It doesn’t mean these genes in any way caused the criminal act, any more than literal fingerprints can be hauled into court to face charges. But perhaps a curse might include other dangers.

In the strict materialist’s version of the same tale, Abel’s murder might instead be pinned on Cain’s own neurological damage, or an inborn psychopathy derived from mutated structure (i.e. a “programming error”, in the reductionist’s patois ). To support this theory, they will point to evidence that not only isn’t exhaustive, but may not even be evidence of cause at all, but rather a measurement of effect.

That possibility — in my opinion the most likely one — isn’t merely because correlation doesn’t equal causation. In the case of brains, it’s because the theory’s proponents leave out a baseline observation about brain development that seems to be indisputable (or, at least, is so widely supported by evidence that no one dares dispute it):

Thoughts change the physical structure of brains.

Our brains were once smooth. Now they’re all wrinkly.

Some more wrinkly then others, for sure. But wrinkled just the same. That’s because thought has unknown physical properties that effect the material world. The wrinkles show the pathways of the damage we inflict on our bodies when we think about stuff.

In fact, we could go even further and say that consciousness is the primary cause of physical brain transformation. We often call that organic bundle the “seat of consciousness” for a reason, which has much to do with its high-availability, multiplexing capacity and other functional advantages. The human brain has evolved as essentially a Swiss Army Knife for consciousness, always kept close at hand. In fact, the entire head is that Swiss Army Knife, packing together all of the major receivers, transceivers and emitters that allow for swift and maximally efficient observation, cognition and transaction with the substance of reality.

So the proper order of cause with brain transformation is as follows:

1. We observe reality.

2. We think about it,

3. We choose how to interact with it.

These observations, thoughts and choices leave behind trace evidence in the form of grooved electrical pathways and other structural changes, which afterwards double as conduits that allow for even faster and more efficient versions of similar processes in future iterations of the loop.

External feedback is obviously also incorporated into the process (stove-hot-ouch), and may leave behind brain damage of its own when we ponder it. But the important thing to remember is that, no matter its provenance, it is all damage.

Like the musculature, however, this damage can either produce future strength or destructive, long-term harm. When the self-inflicted damage is intended to produce strength, it is controlled, measured, incremental and logical. In other words, it is virtuous brain damage, which can serve to carve out useful tunnels and superhighways that serve to maximize the strength and speed of good choices in the future. This is hard work, of course. Especially if your goal is to eventually lift the weightiest of thoughts.

But we can also have evil thoughts and make evil choices. The resultant damage may look like lesions and scars on brain scans, even if there isn’t a provable “physical” cause for the trauma. In fact, I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening in most cases studied by behaviorists, psychologists, neurologists and researchers in related fields. The default assumption has become innate genetic mutation or direct physical trauma, when it actually should be something like this:

These people have been having a lot of evil thoughts and making a lot of evil choices for a very long time, the effect of which has produced radically atypical shapes in their brains.

And here I’ll add a bloodhoundish bit of conjecture, which I think follows from logic:

Maybe what many clinicians see and describe as psychopathic-enabling brain damage constitutes its own version of optimization. All those structures that from a distance look like broken trails, dead-end alleys and twisted spirals could reflect a brain structure that actually streamlines the process for lying, stealing, raping, killing and otherwise maximizing destructive harm upon the world.

By this theory, we are literally looking at crime scenes when we study scans of evil brains. But the crimes are still self-inflicted, and are the ultimate product of the criminal's thoughts and choices.

And additionally, a pattern of evil thoughts and choices may eventually attract darker passengers to climb aboard, such as Harrison’s “x.” And these stowaways may serve to hasten and amplify the damage being done. Not the kind of damage that strengthens, but the kind that weakens, with the goal of carving out enough space for it to seize total control.

Woof.

---

Some final thoughts:

I think the reason so many material-reductionists refuse to see it this way is complicated on the surface, yet simple at its core. It’s the same reason people continually invoke poisoned terms like “emergence” and “evolution” as root causes of actions, instead of the grooved and streamlined pathways for consciousness that they so clearly are.

They don’t want to be forgiven.

In fact, they’d prefer we leave forgiveness out of the picture entirely. Because to forgive or be forgiven is to admit that good and evil exist, and are almost always the result of intentions instead of mere byproducts or quirks of biology that are devoid of moral content. Do what though wilt was Crowley’s sole commandment for a reason. It meant that all was permissible, because the One True God was the Self. It wasn’t “I’d rather apologize than ask for permission.” It was neither.

And via this busted logic, Son of Sam and the Nightstalker weren’t really communing with demons, despite the nature of their crimes and what they claimed.

They were just sick and damaged victims of their biology, you see?

How stupid you must be, to suspect otherwise! How cruel you must be, for accusing them of evil! How something, something, blah, blah, science thing, etc, etc…

That’s not to say there aren’t edge cases and counterexamples. There always are. That’s as obvious a feature of reality as that of thoughts directly shaping brain matter. Accidents can also shape them, however. And degenerative diseases can do that too, as what sadly appears to be happening with Bruce Willis. But of course, even degenerative diseases may have accidents or intentions as their ultimate cause, if we trace the causal chain back far enough. For example, exposure to radiation, microplastics and other toxic environmental hazards can bring about the onset of disease. So can an adulterated food supply. So can hazardous products billed as medications and vaccines.

But regardless, it is likely that Bruce’s brain is accruing uncontrolled damage, and that there’s not much any scientist can do about it. Does that mean he’ll inevitably turn into a villain as a result? Maybe help me fly the plane full of zombification drugs to Zurich, instead of pushing me out of it at 30,000 feet?

Probably not. Or, if he does, he might have done so anyway, even without his condition. We can’t ever really know for sure, because the actual contents of another mind are invisible and immeasurable by default. All we can measure are the traces left behind, the fingerprints and snow trails.

Nevertheless, the words and deeds of someone experiencing catastrophic brain damage will almost certainly look different at the macro level. It’s akin to a road map that’s been sliced up and taped back together in a new arrangement. The driver may be misled down routes that look somewhat familiar, but lead to entirely different destinations.

This confusion is only exacerbated if the driver’s world is in the grip of madness and demons. Most travelers in such a world lack the awareness required to detect even radical changes in their brain’s structure. It gets even worse when that world is hypnotized by technology. Most drivers don’t even read maps anymore, and are only nominally in control of their vehicles. They merely follow the commands of the GPS, though it may be leading them into terrible danger. I’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide who or what the “GPS” is, in that fractal analogy.

What I do know is such edge cases cannot be presumed to be the default cause of evil in the world. It’s a sinister and stupid lie to look at a living being and call it a machine, an inversion of the truth. And, as I’ve said before, no one actually believes that.

That includes the theory’s public pimps, in the land of midwit intellectuals and pseudoscientists. The ones who aren’t crazy are merely lying for advantage. Trying to spread the gospel of blamelessness far and wide so that they will also escape accountability for the evil that they do — or that they dearly wish to do, but are currently restrained by fear of social and legal consequence from doing. They want to scoot that Overton Window all the way over to Crowley’s Law.

It’s working, too.

How often have you heard someone claim that they have a “chemical imbalance” in their brain, or something similar? An autonomous, uncontrollable and repeating error, which compels them to do something harmful, either to others or to themselves?

How often are we told by “experts” that the fault lay not in our own choices, but in the stars and cards of our inherited biology? In God’s “mistakes” instead of our own.

Talk about passing the almighty buck.

Take it away, Al:

But perhaps you find me in error.

As I said, I’m only a humble bloodhound. And those can certainly be thrown off the scent, especially by a clever criminal like the one we face.

Nevertheless, this coming Sunday at 11AM EST, I will be discussing the subject of evil with Harrison and my other Tonic 7 brothers (or many as we can scrape together, in this last gasp of summer).

Join us, won’t you?

The Tonic Seven Podcast:

• YouTube

• Spotify

---

P.S. If you found any of this valuable (and can spare any change), consider dropping a tip in the cup for ya boy. It will also grant you access to my “Posts” section on the donation site, which includes some special paywalled Substack content. Thanks in advance.

1. And yes, I chose Willis on purpose, since something seems to be damaging his own brain. Stay tuned.